AppleInsider - "Apple Inc. is fed up with a small Florida-based firm that has been selling its own brand of computers running hacked versions of the Mac OS X operating system and has finally slapped the company with a lawsuit."

Can anyone not say this was bound to happen when they openly violate the EULA and are thereby distributing illegal software._________________"You must control your future by taking command of your present, and fixing and learning from your past."

This will be interesting to see on how the EULA vs. monopolistic behavior is considered._________________If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.

Honestly.... Apple needs to lower the price of their hardware, update the Mac mini, and come out with a new headless tower that is comparable to the iMac in specs. That's why I was secretly cheering for Psystar. They kind of showed that Apple has failed on all of those fronts.

This will be interesting to see on how the EULA vs. monopolistic behavior is considered.

To be monopolistic behaviour you need to have a monopoly. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in computers or operating systems. Just because they are the only one who sells OS/X doesn't make them a monopoly.

If it did get to court, it would be interesting to see how the EULA faired.

By monopolistic behavior, I meant that OS X, a product that Apple sells by itself, is restricted to Apple hardware by Apple. So you are basically buying a product that you own but are restricted to use by its seller.

The argumentation of Psystar is that it's akin to Microsoft restricting Windows for Dell computers or Honda restricting his cars to ride only on certain roads.

However specious you see this argument, there is still some interest on seeing how this is going to play out for the small fish._________________If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.

Me too sort of, but I'm sure the lawsuit has been in the works since day 1. Maybe Apple needed time to build a case. Whatever revenue Psystar generated can likely be seen as lost revenue by Apple. Whether Psystar will have the means of paying it out to Apple remains to be seen.

This should be a fun case to follow.

I agree with Scooper, Psystar has shown that there is a hole in the Apple product line. Whether Apple will ever deliver in this area has yet to be seen.

I'll be very interested in the outcome as well. At this point, I hope Apple loses. I didn't mind them having a monopoly as long as they put out a range of products to meet their customer's needs, but it is clear that they're not listening to their customers. If they won't put out a minitower, let someone else do it. (And yes, I realize that this has nothing to do with the EULA.)_________________Mini 1 (2012): 2.3 ghz Core i7; 10 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2 (2009): 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate used as HTPC
Also a 13" MacBook Air, 21.5" i5 iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu, openSUSE & Crunchbang

By monopolistic behavior, I meant that OS X, a product that Apple sells by itself, is restricted to Apple hardware by Apple. So you are basically buying a product that you own but are restricted to use by its seller.

The argumentation of Psystar is that it's akin to Microsoft restricting Windows for Dell computers or Honda restricting his cars to ride only on certain roads.

However specious you see this argument, there is still some interest on seeing how this is going to play out for the small fish.

I agree about the interest just not about the monopoly.

Microsoft does have a monopoly in PC OS. Apple+OSX is like Microsoft+XBox, Sony+PS3, Nintendo+Wii.

Similarly, AMD could tie up exclusive CPU supplier arrangements with its customers (if any were that daft). Intel can't because it has the monopoly so it has to ensure its business practices don't put barriers in front of new entrants to the market.

In Pystar terms. Its business is selling PCs. It can do that just fine by selling them with Windows (or Linux or OpenSolaris). So Apple's restrictions on OSX aren't a barrier in the way of someone entering the PC market.

The interesting thing is what it means to purchase a copy of some software. Do you as the purchaser then have the right to do with that software anything you please, as long as you ensure only one copy is "live" at anytime (i.e. you don't breach any intellectual property rights). I would bet that this case, even if it got to court, would go Apple's way as Pystar are a business attempting to profit from selling OSX and that the judgement will say nothing about whether or not Apple would be successful if they prosecuted you or me for doing the same thing, as consumers for our own use.

I didn't read the lawsuit but, jumping on the EULA bandwagon, Pystar wouldn't be violating that, would they? After all, it's the people buying the machines that are in fact the "end user". Right?

If Pystar aren't a legitimate reseller and they were pre-installing OSX on the machines before selling them, then presumably at the point they are installing the OS they are the end user. They must have at some point ripped off the shrink wrap to install that first copy.

If Pystar aren't a legitimate reseller and they were pre-installing OSX on the machines before selling them, then presumably at the point they are installing the OS they are the end user. They must have at some point ripped off the shrink wrap to install that first copy.